PLC(CS) 1991

1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD SARWAR Versus SECRETARY, FINANCE DIVISION and others

Jurisdiction / Court
Federal Service Tribunal
Decided Date
Appeals Nos.157‑L of 1987 and 542‑R of 1989, decided on 29th May, 1990.
Honorable Judges
Syed Ally Madad Shah, Chairman and Salahuddin Chaudhri, Member
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Federal Service Tribunal
Bench Members Syed Ally Madad Shah, Chairman and Salahuddin Chaudhri, Member
Parties MUHAMMAD SARWAR Versus SECRETARY, FINANCE DIVISION and others
Primary Law Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Syed Ally Madad Shah, Chairman and Salahuddin Chaudhri, Member.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD SARWAR Versus SECRETARY, FINANCE DIVISION and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Muhammad Amir Akbar Khan for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 22nd February, 1990.

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑S. 17‑‑Finance Division Office Memorandum No. F. (I)‑Imp/83, dated 18‑8‑1983 read with Memorandum No.F.l(28)‑8.3/84, dated 2‑12‑1985‑‑ `Moveover'‑‑ Appellant, a Statistical Officer in office of Central Excise and _$ales Tax, preferred appeal for `moreover' to BPS‑18 in category of `Statisticians' in terms of finance Division Office Memorandum dated 18‑8‑1983 and dated 2‑12‑1985‑‑‑Appellant was MA. in Mathematics with Statistics and on his selection by Public Service Commission he was appointed as Statistical Officer (BPS‑16) which post was upgraded to BPS‑17 and appellant was adjusted against one of those posts‑‑‑Appellant's claim for `moveover' to BPS‑18 was rejected by Department on ground that he did not occupy category of professional or technical civil servants as recruitment rules did not provide for promotion to Statistical Officer and also that recruitment rules for post of Statistical Officer prescribed Master's degree in Economics or Statistics for eligibility to seek appointment‑‑‑Appellant, in fact, did not come in category of Statisticians envisaged in Finance Division Memorandum dated 2‑12‑1985 qualification for which was Master's Degree in Statistics whereas appellant was MA. in Mathematics with Statistics‑‑‑Held, appellant did not fall in category of Statisticians and his qualification i.e. MA. Mathematic with Statistics did not equate with M.A./M.Sc. Statistics‑‑‑Appellant was, therefore, rightly excluded from category of Technicians/processional for purpose of benefit of `moveover admissible under scheme of BPS introduced under Finance Division O&M Office Memorandum dated 18‑8‑1983 read with O&M Memo dated 2‑12‑1985. Appellant in person.

Judgment & Decree

3. The statement of facts given in the memo of appeal is sufficiently comprehensive for determination of the question agitated by the appellant. The subtle question for determination is whether the appellant by virtue of his employment as a Statistical Officer falls in the category of the technical and professional civil servants or in the category of non-technical or non-professional civil servants as there are different provisions for giving benefit of moveover to the two classes of civil servants viz. technical/professional and non-technical/non- professional. The posts constituting technical or professional categories are specified in the relevant orders. The technical/professional categories comprise Doctors, Engineers, Educationists, Economists, Management Accountants, Scientists, Archaeologists, Geologists, Meteorologists, Experts of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Forestry, as specified in the Office Memorandum dated 18-8-1983, referred to above, with the addition of Chartered Accountants, Electronic Data Processing Personnel/Computer Personal Librarians; Pharmacists; Physiotherapists; Statisticians; Architects and Town Planners, possessing qualifications as per Office Memo., dated 2-12-1985. The appellant claims that he falls within the category of `Statisticians' and he is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of moveover as is admissible to the categories of professionals and technical His representation was rejected on the grounds that he did not occupy the category of professional or technical civil servants as the recruitment rules did not provide for promotion of Statistical Officers and also that the recruitment rules for the post of Statistical Officers prescribed the Master's degree in Economics or Statistics for eligibility to seek appointment to. It is not necessary to probe into the question whether the Statistical Officer is a `Statistician' for all purposes as the question to be resolved is whether the appellant is a `Statistician' as envisaged in the O.M. dated 2-12-1985, which may be reproduced for avoiding any doubts in respect of its interpretation. It is Annexure E at page 19 to the memo of appeal. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN FINANCE DIVISION (REGULATION WING) NO.F.1 (28)R-3/84Islamabad, the 2nd December, 1985. Subject: SCHEME OF BASIC PAY SCALES AND FRINGE BENEFITS -- MOVEOVER UPTO BPS-20 IN THE CASE OF TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL CATEGORIES. The undersigned is directed to refer to this Division's Office Memorandum No.F.1(1)-Imp/83, dated 18-8-1983 introducing the Scheme of Basic Pay Scales and Fringe Benefits for Civil Employees of the Federal Government and to state that it has been decided to introduce the following additional categories in the technical & professional categories who are eligible for move-over upto BPS-20 under para 6(c) of the above O.M. provided the individuals concerned possess the prescribed qualifications shown against each category and also as laid down in the recruitment rules for the posts. Prescribed qualifications for Category: Recruitment to the posts. (i) Chartered Accountants. Chartered Accountancy. (ii) Electric Data Processing Personnel /Computer Personnel M.Sc. Degree in Computer Science or M.Sc./MBA with a diploma in Computer Science. (iii) Librarians. MA./M.Sc. in Library Science or MA /M.Sc. in any subject with a diploma in any Library Science. (iv) Pharmacists. B. Pharmacy or M.Sc.(Pharmacology). (v) Physiotherapists. M.Sc. Physiotherapy. (vi) Statisticians. MA./M.Sc. Statistics. (vii) Architects and Town Planners. Master's or Engineering degree in Architecture and Town Planning. These orders will take effect from 1-7-1983. (Sd. ) M. Hamid Hasan, Joint Secretary." The Memorandum reproduced above includes in the categories of technicals and professionals only those individuals from the categories specified therein who possess the given qualifications which are also prescribed in rules for recruitment to the post. The appellant claims his place in the category of `Statistician which is at S.No.V in the classification of the posts in the O.M. reproduced above. The inclusion of `Statistician' in these categories extends to only those `Statisticians' who are MA./M.Sc. in Statistics and the recruitment rules also prescribe the same qualifications for the posts held by them. The appellant has stated that his academic qualifications are M.A. in Mathematics with Statistics in second class. Obviously, he is neither M.A. nor M.Sc. in Statistics. M.A. in Mathematics with Statistics does not equate with M.A./M.Sc. Statistics. The appellant, therefore, does not fall in the category of `Statistician' envisaged under the aforesaid O.M. dated 2-12-1985. He was, therefore, rightly excluded from the category of technicals/professionals for the purpose of the benefit of `move-over' admissible under the scheme of Basic Pay Scales introduced under O.M. dated 18-8-1983 read with O.M. dated 2-12-1985. He has already been given benefit of move-over considering him to be in the category of non-professionals/non-technicals. Thus, the appellant has no case to succeed, and the appeal is dismissed with no order-as to costs. M.Y.H./580/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.